War, corruption, and public ignorance give a different look to the beautiful countryside between Bosnia and Serbia. In this absurdist film, Bosnian film director, Danis Tanovic, lands a cold slap in the face on anyone who considers the Serbo-Bosnian war to be a sane endeavor. As far as getting out of this conflict, Serbia might as well be stuck on a land mine.
Set in no-man's-land, the trench between the crossfire, two soldiers from opposite lines find one another in a stalemate. Nonetheless, they bicker about who's country started the war, behaving like kids with play-guns. The startling fact of the matter is . . . these aren't the play-kind. Even with the U.N. coming to rescue the soldiers, neither will submit his honor to the other. When tension escalates, careless violence almost instantaneously ensues. When a second Serbian is found to be alive in the trench, apprehension escalates further. It is this man, Ceri, who tries to talk some sense into the other two. As all three wait on the U.N. for liberation, it becomes clear that no soldier will ever come out truly liberated. Next time they see each other, they agree, it will be through the eye of a gun sight. The tragedies of war and ethnic cleansing will forever haunt these men, even if they live through the war.
The chances of living at all seem to sink further and further. Dubois, the head man at the local U.N. office will not dispense a rescue team until he's pressured to do so by a journalist and her press squad. This icon of internationalism, is therefore portrayed as the epitome of corruption. Lounging at a desk with a trophy girl, he commands the Frenchman on the phone to "tell [the press] anything you like" in order that he not have to send a rescue mission. This international insufficiency relates not only to the peace attempts during the war, but to the genocide in the region as well.
In order to achieve the most cynical criticism for the Serbo-Bosnian war, Tanovic combines a sardonic script with cool cinematography. Soldiers like to throw verbal punches at one another; at times, it seems that is the only aspect of life keeping them sane. When Ciki, the Bosnian, makes conversation with Ceri, his immobile Bosnian friend, Ceri mentions that he enjoys not being able to move, that he can't wait for the news crews to film him shatting his pants. Obviously, he is a bit ill humored about his fate, and that of his country. Cool cinematography parallels this kind of sarcasm when the viewer watches soldiers get mowed down by artillary fire at dawn, in a green field, and under a blue sky. It would appear as if the film squad were practicing for a gloomier day; but yet, this is the cool realism Tanovic aims for. Before the camera establishes a loyalty to one character or army line, a reverse shot takes perspective of the enemy with his gunsight outlining the figure of an enemy's head. Tanovic does not mean to give a one sided argument about who started the war. His aims to criticize those who aim to maintain it. Such a group seems entirely too large, but also establishes this film both nationally and globally.
Much like that of Becket's tragedy, the time frame for No Man's Land is one day. Catch 22, another absurdist novel, comes to mind for genre comparison. The genre shared among other countries is yet another reason why this film is acknowledged internationally.
Hey man, nice review. I think you had some pretty good insight into the purpose of the film, as well as the intentions of the director. I don't necessarily know if it was one-sided at some points (why would only the Serbians be able to speak a language besides their native one? to seem more intelligent, perhaps?). Regardless, you did a great job with this review. Lots of good truth here. :)
ReplyDeleteGreat review and analysis of how the film related to the conflict. However, There is one thing that I don't think you addressed. This movie may be just as critical of the UN as the conflict in Bosnia. It almost seems like neither side in the war is the antagonist, but the UN who keeps meddling in it. In a neutral mission there, they seem to create more problems than they solve. Anyway, it was a job well done on this review.
ReplyDeleteI disagree somewhat with the assertion that the conflict was not one sided. I feel as though the director attempted to frame the conflict as a result of Serbian actions. One example of this is the cold indifference exhibited by the Serbs when the trench is bombed. They were going to take out the trench occupants, regardless of nationality.
ReplyDeleteNice Review, it would make me want to see the movie.I think this movie was critical of the UN as well, showing how its neutrality in almost every situation is hypocrisy and only causes more trouble. They should either choose sides definitively, or just mind their own business.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really nice review. It clearly explains all the elemets important in the film such as setting and the mannerisms of the characters. However I didn't understand what you mean by cool cinematgraphy. I think you could have been more clear on your description and used another instead of repeating that one. Other than that, the comparision to the novel Catch-22 was right on. No matter what nothing good would come of out of the situation except in the illusioned lens of the news camera.
ReplyDelete